The manner recent opinion polls on this year’s presidential race are being reported by The Star shows a surprising lack of analytical skills at Lion Place.
Take a look:
June 9: “Karua effect pushes Raila past Ruto — poll”
The story by Allan Kisia said in paragraph 10: “The poll indicates undecided voters in Mt Kenya increased from 14 per cent to 20 per cent, while in North Rift they surged from 13 per cent to 23 per cent.”
The same poll, according to the story, gave Deputy President William Ruto a stronger lead in South Rift (59 per cent) than his native North Rift (56 per cent).
Then, the story already said that Odinga’s popularity has surged to 42 per cent. Yet, a poll in May by the same firm said Ruto and Odinga tied at 42 per cent.
What is wrong with these numbers?
One, what’s up in the North Rift? Is it possible that Martha Karua has excited a unique demographic in the North Rift more than anywhere else in the country? How? What’s that demographic?
Two, unless there’s a huge disparity of registered voters in the South than the North Rift, how is it possible that Ruto has more votes in the South than in his native North?
Three, if Odinga and Ruto were tied at 42 per cent last month, how can you report a month later that one has “surged” to – wait for it – the same number, 42?
Four, where did Ruto’s 4 per cent that he lost go? To undecided column only? None went to Raila’s column? Well, that’s mathematically plausible. What’s implausible is Raila’s numbers both increasing and remaining constant, simultaneously.
June 12: The News Brief audio, embedded in The Star website:
“Azimio candidate Raila Odinga has pulled into a clear lead in the presidential race. This is according to the latest Radio Africa opinion poll (at least by June 12). The percentage lead is well above the poll’s margin of error. It is a dramatic change for Raila, who in July 2021 had just 14 per cent support, according to Radio Africa polls, compared to 42 per cent for Ruto. If the presidential election had been held a year ago, William Ruto could have been the clear winner.”
What is the most important information in that clip? That Odinga has “pulled into a clear lead” over Ruto. What defines a “clear lead”? Numbers.
Now if this was a marathon and you were reporting for a radio audience, or any audience that is not there to see it, you must say that the guy ahead has pulled out, putting a distance of five meters. Or half the field. Or seven seconds. Whatever. Anything that gives meaning to “a clear lead.” Otherwise, what is clear? To whom?
Instead, the Star just said Odinga has pulled into a clear lead. Then, numbers from last year!
Surely, even the anchor whose job is to read the teleprompter should have sensed a gap – hoping he had a chance to see the script before going on air. But wait, this was recorded. Nobody caught the lapse to go back for take-two?
What is missing in the examples above?
First, the ability to count and subtract correctly. Second, the proficiency to make sense of numbers.
Reporting numbers without demonstrating a credible interpretation of what they say cheapens journalism.
